Since 1900, several scholars have argued that the terms "Olympian" and "chthonian" are commonly misused or overused, and that in the realm of ritual in particular the difference between sacrifices with and those without participation in the offerings by the worshipers does not coincide with the difference between Olympian and chthonian divinities. Fritz Graf and Walter Burkert, applying a model from social anthropology, have lately maintained that participation and nonparticipation are "ritual symbols," that is, variables employed among others to articulate (...) phases within the ritual itself; they imply nothing about any recipient, and have to do only with "the inner logic of the ritual." The present paper undertakes a reassessment of the relationship between recipients of sacrifice and the various sacrificial modes from the point of view of the Olympian/chthonian distinction. It argues that Olympian and chthonian sacrificial modes are clearly distinguishable, and that the character of the divine recipient is a fundamental constitutive element of Greek ritual. The basic principles of the author's approach are worked out with reference to the test case of rituals attested at various places and dates for Zeus Polieus. It is suggested that there is a remarkable consistency of specific ritual motifs in all these cases; that very specific conceptual themes and areas of interest, centering on agriculture, are everywhere associated with this god; and that the rituals and the themes cohere with one another and constitute a specific application of the Olympian/chthonian distinction predicated on the special characteristics of this particular divinity, who has a foot in each realm. It is argued that the Olympian/chthonian distinction retains its basic significance if it is applied in a less mechanical way than it has traditionally been. It is a central organizing principle in Greek religion, but does not represent a sufficient basis for analyzing individual divinities or rituals: specific character traits and interests and the circumstances of particular rites are fundamental, and will affect its application in given cases. Nor are the two categories mutually exclusive: they constitute one essential system at work in shaping the phenomena of Greek religion, but there is a much larger area of intersection between the two sets than has generally been recognized. One specific element of Greek practice-sacrifices with participation, but where the participation is required to take place in the sanctuary-are studied in detail, and it is suggested that they belong to an area of ritual intersection between the Olympian and chthonian categories. Recipients of such sacrifices are wholly or partly chthonian in character ; the desire not to destroy meat has led in these cases to a variation on holocaust sacrifice in the direction of Olympian banqueting: participation, but in a tightly controlled ritual setting. A Hebrew parallel for this sort of ritual compromise is suggested. On the basis both of the study of this particular sacrificial mode and of the more fluid approach to the general distinction sketched earlier, a reconsideration of some canonical lists of rites regarded as exceptions to the Olympian/chthonian distinction is undertaken. Most of the exceptions can be satisfactorily reconciled with the distinction if it is conceived and applied in the manner suggested in the paper. (shrink)

The record shows that Poseidon was once worshipped in every part of Greece as a god of general importance to the community. In the glimpse of Mycenaean ritual afforded by the Pylos tablets Poseidon is the chief deity, and the offerings and perhaps also the custom of ‘spreading the bed’ point to agrarian concerns. In each of the main districts of historical Greece he is rooted in tradition: Arcadia, that ancient landscape, is full of ancient cults of Poseidon; Ionia gathers (...) to honour Poseidon Helikônios; ‘all Boeotia is sacred to Poseidon’, according to Aristarchus , and here and in Thessaly he dominates mythical genealogy; the Dorian Peloponnesus is likewise ‘sacred to Poseidon’ , and at his shrine on Calaureia, the seat of an early amphictyony, Mycenaean antecedents come into question – as at few other shrines in Greece. Yet much of the testimony is antiquarian and retrospective; Poseidon's pre-eminence is more of a memory than a reality. In such a well-documented city as Athens Poseidon has a very small place indeed in public festivities. In Greek literature his authority is slight and his powers are narrow, being virtually confined to earthquakes and storms at sea; he is chivvied by Zeus and flouted by Odysseus, and the reparation which Odysseus is required to make, of establishing Poseidon's worship among landsmen who take an oar for a winnowing fan, is a mocking and belated tribute to his former domain. (shrink)

The record shows that Poseidon was once worshipped in every part of Greece as a god of general importance to the community. In the glimpse of Mycenaean ritual afforded by the Pylos tablets Poseidon is the chief deity, and the offerings and perhaps also the custom of ‘spreading the bed’ point to agrarian concerns. In each of the main districts of historical Greece he is rooted in tradition: Arcadia, that ancient landscape, is full of ancient cults of Poseidon; Ionia gathers (...) to honour Poseidon Helikônios; ‘all Boeotia is sacred to Poseidon’, according to Aristarchus, and here and in Thessaly he dominates mythical genealogy; the Dorian Peloponnesus is likewise ‘sacred to Poseidon’, and at his shrine on Calaureia, the seat of an early amphictyony, Mycenaean antecedents come into question – as at few other shrines in Greece. Yet much of the testimony is antiquarian and retrospective; Poseidon's pre-eminence is more of a memory than a reality. In such a well-documented city as Athens Poseidon has a very small place indeed in public festivities. In Greek literature his authority is slight and his powers are narrow, being virtually confined to earthquakes and storms at sea; he is chivvied by Zeus and flouted by Odysseus, and the reparation which Odysseus is required to make, of establishing Poseidon's worship among landsmen who take an oar for a winnowing fan, is a mocking and belated tribute to his former domain. (shrink)

L’examen de l’ensemble des données relatives au culte de Zeus Polieus à Athènes, tant dans l’asty que dans les dèmes (fin du vie s. – début du iiie s. ap. J.-C.), permet de mettre en évidence trois dimensions de ce dieu : son ancrage fondamentalement acropolitain ; sa position élevée, dont il tire de possibles compétences en matière agricole ; son rôle politique. Toutefois, ce dernier aspect ne doit pas être surévalué : à Athènes, le Polieus n’est ni un dieu (...) tutélaire ni un protecteur actif de la cité. Il semble plutôt garantir l’unité de la communauté politique et surtout la position tutélaire d’Athéna (Polias) ; c’est du moins ce que laisse entendre une glose d’Hésychios qui propose un récit étiologique des Bouphonies sensiblement différent de celui, bien connu, transmis par le De Abstinentia de Porphyre. The study of the evidence regarding the cult of Zeus Polieus in Athens, in the asty as well as in the demes (end of 6th c. – beginning of 3rd c. CE), allows us to emphasize three main dimensions of the god. These are: his fundamental rooting on the Acropolis, the highness of his location — which explains his probable agricultural skills — and his political role. The Polieus’ political capacity shall not be overestimated, though: in Athens, he is neither a tutelary god nor an active protector of the polis. He rather seems to guarantee the unity of the political community and, above all, the tutelary position of Athena (Polias). At least, this is what an aetiological tale for the Bouphonia, found in a gloss from Hesychios, seems to show. Indeed, this version of the myth differs noticeably from the more famous one from Pophyry’s De Abstinentia. (shrink)